Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: tegra: Document compatible for IGX

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 03/05/2023 11:18, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:22:21AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 02/05/2023 17:02, Shubhi Garg wrote:
>>> Document the compatible strings used for Nvidia IGX Orin Development
>>> kit which uses P3701 SKU8 and P3740 carrier board.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shubhi Garg <shgarg@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.yaml | 5 +++++
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.yaml
>>> index 0df41f5b7e2a..34523b8b5d1f 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.yaml
>>> @@ -176,5 +176,10 @@ properties:
>>>            - const: nvidia,p3768-0000+p3767-0000
>>>            - const: nvidia,p3767-0000
>>>            - const: nvidia,tegra234
>>> +      - description: NVIDIA IGX Orin Development Kit
>>> +        items:
>>> +          - const: nvidia,p3740-0002+p3701-0008
>>> +          - const: nvidia,p3701-0008
>>> +          - const: nvidia,tegra234
>>>  
>>
>> Don't stuff things to the end, but put in some logical order. For
>> example 'I' could be before 'N'.
> 
> Sorting these alphabetically doesn't work well because it's not very
> deterministic. So far we've always grouped these by SoC family and
> within each group they are sorted chronologically. Chronologically
> here being determined by the upstream activity. We could perhaps make
> that a bit more formal by sorting by part number. Those are usually
> assigned at design time (i.e. p3740 was designed prior to p3768), so
> in that case the IGX would be sorted after the AGX Orin.
> 
> The NVIDIA in the description is something we haven't been very strict
> about. It'd probably be a good idea to add that wherever relevant since
> other vendors make products with these modules.
> 
> We could also add comments to the list to visually separate the SoC
> family groups. That's something for another patch, though.
> 
> Would you agree with chronological (by part number) sorting? In practice
> this would tend towards new things getting added to the end, but I think
> it's the least confusing for people looking at these lists. For instance
> if I buy a very recent device, I would expect it to show up somewhere
> close to the end of a list rather than potentially very high up.

Yeah, this works as well. I assumed something around this. Probably this
should should go then one step up.

Best regards,
Krzysztof




[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux